Friday, 17 February 2017

Back a few months I addressed the pathetic line of Canadian Facebook 'Vets for Conservatives' who questioned the 'courage and more moral clarity' of soldiers, serving and retired, afflicted with PTSD, here:

As the article points out, there are a certain number of serving
members/vets, who aligned with Steven Harper's petty, moralizing,
judgemental conservative brand. Narcissistic douch-bags who have no
time, empathy, nor compassion, for those they feel were too weak on the
battlefield...undeserving of the respect of their peers, because they
had the audacity to be emotionally affected by battlefield
conditions/atrocities, or just the madness of it all.

Any soldier
will agree that those troops afflicted with PTSD, generally speaking,
has experienced feeling inadequate on/in the battle, experience horrors
that will not leave the mind, or placed in a situation where they could
not adequately respond to a life & death situation, of another
soldier, an enemy combatant, a civilian, a child...because of 'rules of
engagement' or other factors limiting their effectiveness in responding
to the situation.

The key here, is that PTSD is a perfectly normal response, to a perfectly non-normal circumstance or experience.

*Read this last line a 2nd time*

Many troops are of a mind, where they are naturally inoculated against
PTSD, simply because they head into battle to slay dragons, slay the
enemy...anyone whom is a threat is perceived fair game. They have no
doubt in the concept of total war and annihilation of the enemy. They,
return after a tour, and after a few months of boredom in a training
garrison environment, they submit their release from the military and
call Blackwater/Academi, to head over as a mercenary, to slay more
dragons.

It's their opiate.

These guys have no time for any so
called soldier that would bear any guilt or remorse, any questioning of
the battle task at hand. PTSD to these guys is weakness. Weakness means
death.
If you read some of the stuff that came out of a FB group
'Veterans for Conservatives' back in 2015, you'll get a taste of their
contempt for what they perceive as weakness on the battlefield. I wrote a
piece on it:

1st link above...

As I described it then:

it is generally the situation that PTSD is a real or often PERCEIVED
shortcoming/inadequacy that results in mental anguish/dreams/nightmares
etc... It can and often is simply experiencing situations where one has
no power to do anything in a given situation;

unable to stop
long enough [whilst on a mission with other priorities] to personally
care for injured civilians, feed the starving;

unable to save the life of a mortally wounded comrade in arms... for three, of thousands of examples.

In the days of Bosnia and initial years of Afghanistan, I believe it's
entirely fair to say that the Canadian Forces did not do a great job in
conducting pre-deployment training in regards to 'PTSD inoculation'.

In
fact, one could claim that it was near non-existant in the combat arms
[infantry/armoured/arty/engineers], and virtually unrealized in the
preparation of combat support troops [logistics].

My theory is that the
CF Medical Branch did not drop the PTSD ball so to speak; rather, they
didn't even bother to pick it up, seriously, until midway in our Afghan
experience.

It's 2017, and the CF still has yet to develop a
truly effective response, that ends up retaining the majority of those
afflicted. In my mind, a monumental failure. Even worse, Veterans
Affairs Canada [VAC] is to busy vindictively moralizing in reducing the
amount of marijuana available, thereby promoting the continued/increased
use of narcotic opioids and just as debilitating, alcohol.

So,
whereas conservative leaning CF members/vets were previously somewhat
careful in condemning their PTSD afflicted breathern, they have
apparently become quite embolden via social media in their condemnation.

You who judge your peers, should be ashamed; I feel your shame for you.

I called them cowards [Oct 2015], when they hid behind veiled
criticisms, challenging the 'courage' and 'moral clarity' of soldiers,
they deemed not quite as tough as they.

Today, I believe the entirely appropriate word is, douche-bag, in the singular. Douche-bags, in the plural.

In injecting your crusader venom onto your brethern, online, perhaps
instead of manufacturing imaginary terrorists, CSIS and the RCMP would
be better employed with all of their new shiny kit, tracking your IP/MAC
addresses, and asses down. Especially those of you who are still in uniform. I'd love to be sitting in on the public courts martial as you babble, trying to justify your actions, to your Commanding Officer....or Brigade Commander, for those of you more senior.Aside - I
had a peer on my Snr Leaders Course, who after 3 tours, came home and
found himself repeatedly waking up at zero dark thirty, on top of his
wife, pounding the living daylights out of

'the demons who were
attacking/over-running his hasty defensive position'
...

After the second occurrence...well you can guess what happened to
their relationship.

My issue with this scenario, is the complete lack of
empathy displayed by both [a very few] serving and retired vets,
accompanied by judgemental ignorance that is staggering in it's vacuous
morality.

For anyone looking to understand PTSD, I highly recommend Retired Lt Col David Grossman's book 'On Combat' and this video presentation based on same -- 'Bullet Proof Mind':https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RDCtMEHFLM

His theories and ideas are spot on, however I do take exception with his religious overtones. That said, if you honestly and truly believe that your killing jihadis as God's work, that is a form of PTSD inoculation... IMHO, if you are killing people in the name of your religion, you need a new religion or a complete rethink on religion period.

Saturday, 31 December 2016

I am the quintessential Canadian environmentalist. I grew up in Atikokan Ontario, 100+ miles west of Thunder Bay, Ontario 20 miles north of the American border, in pristine wilderness adjacent to gorgeous Quetico Provincial Park. I spent my weekends and days off school, from sunrise to sunset hunting partridge, fishing, chasing squirrels and sighting an occasional magnificent lynx. I cherish our numerous environmental/water protection acts, as I believe most Canadians have and do.
[ www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=E826924C-1 ]

I was not very impressed when Comrade Harper essentially trashed these various ACTS to expedite business interests and after a year of complete inaction by young Trudeau's new Liberal circus act, more-than-equally very unimpressed.

I live in Spruce Grove Alberta, near directly downwind from the coal generators, 45 km west of us, located around the Wabamun Lake area. On still days, of meteorological inversion,the brown haze extends like a horizontal oriental paper fan a few hundred feet in the air, for kilometers. I will personally be very happy to see it's demise.

Ironically, [due my own ignorance] had I known of the coal generators existence, we would have not settled and built our home precisely here.

But, I am not understanding why, in Dec 2016 I [we] do not have a small 1 square meter nuclear power plant buried in my back yard, slowly disintegrating a single 2.5 square centimeter nuclear fuel pellet, supplying my complete energy needs... It's not rocket science [anymore].

However comma, having said all that, I understand that there is presently not nearly enough green energy available, to replace our dirty energy sources. That essentially means that we still need dirty energy for some considerable time to come, and that our governments welcomed plans to kick industry in the ass, are far to optimistic.

Hence, of the three methods of oil/gas transportation, pipeline, truck or rail, I absolutely believe that pipe is the 'safest' [my only real concern] method.

I also believe [and it's most likely considered politically incorrect to say] that native bands/leaders/populations that claim to be environmentally concerned, are really simply creating a ruckus to create some level of cash payout [bribe]. When the dollars speak, we'll VERY quickly see native environmental concerns vaporize. I cannot recall the gentleman's name, but there was an Albertan native leader that said as much, a few weeks go, interviewed by CBC and I completely agree with his assessment.

Sitting down yesterday afternoon with my son's father-in-law, George [visiting from Ontario], a railway engineer [designer, not driver] in discussion ... he suggested that the oil pipeline gurus completely avoid the entire issue and build the required pipelines, on land that is already owned, uncontested, has legal right of way, presently runs thru native lands/reservations in some instances, has already had either extensive or some environmental studies done and save everyone a huge amount of time, effort expense and reduce drama-lama's to tears...

George's answer;

"pair up with the railway companies and

build pipelines 'parallel to', along existing railways"

The added bonus, is that you have a railway to give quick [emergency spill containment/cleanup] access to any point along the pipeline, via that same railway.

Your also not creating new multi-thousand kilometer clear-cut corridors thru virgin forest, and

You've effectively neutered native claims to anything.

In the mean time, we can push industry to start cranking out those miniaturized nuclear power plants to drive our homes and re-charge our vehicles batteries. Then once we have a real energy source that can replace dirty energy, we can completely get rid of the latter.

Should 'we' have started this process 45 years ago, absolutely. However comma, it is, what it is.

Friday, 30 December 2016

However comma, in a world, where huge numbers of people no longer
know the meaning of shame, I would argue, some situations require a
level of meanness & need to be called out.

In a world, which
increasingly produces large numbers of smarmy-
narcassistic-it's-really-really-all-about-me wannabe 'faux tall
poppies', it is necessary for them to be chopped down a .33 of a meter
or two.

One often hears regurgitated from these non-contributing zeros, "let's not dwell on the past, lets move forward".

No, let's dwell on your shameful past/behavior for a minute, so that
hopefully you are able to recognize that your a deadbeat and should
possibly put some effort into improving yourself and not repeating your
shameful behavior.

This can often be attained, by asking yourself
one simple question before you launch your shameful behavior; " what
negative impact is this going to have on other people ? "

There
is no reason why, whilst 'moving forward' towards improving yourself, we
cannot fully acknowledge your shameful behavior. The former, is guided
by the latter.

Otherwise, your just going to carry on being a
smarmy asshole, with no sense of shame, and others will have to ' feel
shame, for you '.

The German's actually have a word for it: fremdschämen

(reflexive, informal) to feel ashamed about something someone else
has done; to be embarrassed because someone else has embarrassed himself
(and doesn't notice)

to be perfectly clear, of course, no one should be discriminated against based on their gender, orientation, fetish or state of confusion, in sorting out any of the aforementioned.

Labelled “The Legal Case for Gender-Neutral Pronouns”, the author presents absolutely no legal case for gender-neutral pronouns other than to describe the fullest extent of the law [hate crime] and completely ignore the [carefully crafted] knock on effects.

Indeed, individuals who choose of their own free will to ignore plea's for kind labels such as zeer, zim and they, will obviously fall short of a hate crime. This is so painfully obvious, as to be biologically 'not a thing'.

However comma, individuals that must interface with zims/zeers/theys as a part of their employment [particularly government employees], these 'institutionalised' individuals, who exercise their right to ignore participating in a confused 'non-binaries' physiological journey, will suffer supposedly unintended [non-hate crime] consequences.

Professor Jordan Peterson is a prime example; he had the audacity to merely express his opinion [he's not yet had a gender conflicted individual who has yet actually, demand interstellar mind expanding labels] and he's on the receiving end of formal notices from his employer to cease and desist. If in fact, Peterson's declarations are not-a-thing, why would a Canadian University feel it necessary to initiate the process [we all know the HR drill, 1st letter, a 2nd letter, possibly a third, and then your out of a job]?

If C-16 does not call for this, how does the U of T feel justified in any manner, in formally calling for him to stand down on his self-declared option of language and free speech? We know why U of T is doing this and we know that Ontario's Human Right Tribunal decisions and C-51 give them every legal right to call for Peterson's legal execution....even tho he has yet to actually, not comply with the entire gender pronoun thing; he's just expressed an opinion. A thought.

As Peterson explains, under these new SJW laws, it's not very difficult to envision [short of any hate crime] a student or citizen he encounters in his professional 'institutionalised capacity, where he refuses to call Bob, “Zim”, launching a civil suit for damaged feelings. A $ amount is awarded to the wallflower for their lack of self-esteem, Peterson refuses to pay, which places him or anyone in 'contempt of court', which is precisely, a jail-able offence.

This is not theoretical, it is entirely the logical likely lawful outcome. And as a bonus in the process, social just warrior's would pee themselves in glee, seeing this otherwise absolutely distinguished and outstanding professor, indeed loses his job.

Despite the honorific-ally degree'd peer-reviewed social justice warriors, [one specifically of BC fame who insists on her gender studies students, declaring their orientation (only to be mocked if their 'straight' (feelings?)) and then admittedly subjects them to 'artistic' (her word) video interpretations of lesbian ~fisting~ love (really !)] who declare a 3rd, 4th - 41st (NY State for example) gender/non-gender flavor, which have more affinity with fetish than gender....there is not a shred of biological scientific evidence to support more that the human genders of male and female.

These same pant suit wearing intellectuals, avec strap-on, also declare virtually no difference between the sexes; obviously not having been exposed to the theory of X and Y chromosomes. It's not surprising that the penis and clitoris start out with very similar structural threads. However comma, they are at a loss as for how to then explain how the two organs then develop into different looking handlebars, 'cause we're all the same' don't you know ?

Likewise, being a woman in a man's body [which makes me a lesbian I guess]....'If I don't “identify” as being a woman, it doesn't mean I'm not a woman. But I digress.

These same social just warriors, being previously successful at lobbying the [very notably un-elected] Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, in lawfully declaring one's feeling of sexuality/gender as legitimate, the terms of ' zee, zim, they ', are required politically correct form.

So it's the federal legislation that gives these 'Tribunal' decisions additional legal weight.

Local elementary school-boards where I live in Parkland County, cite the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal decisions, in their official declarations, as the example to follow [when in doubt]. This, precisely obligates [institutionalised public and private Catholic for that matter] teachers to mouth zim & zeer as appropriate, so as not to offend those afflicted with gender diaspora. We can all agree that this is nice, it's warm and fuzzy and friendly.

The unintended knock on effect, is the disintegration of historical family terms such as mom, dad,, mother, father, sister, brother, grandpa, grandma.

Teachers, so as to not offend the fantastical non-binary, simply will not refer to anyone, as mom, dad, mother, father.... Now rather, it's your “parent/parents.

Students, so as to not offend a (3rd party to the conversation with their teacher) fantastical non-binary, are not refer to their mom, dad, mother, father....rather it's your “parent/parents. It's not my 'brother', rather it's now, my 'sibling' … WTFrack ?

It's so unintended, that even when the supposed non-binary is the 3rd, distant person overhearing the conversation, from a distance, this is the required language. It keeps the teacher safe, and thus, more importantly, it keeps the institution safe, from litigation.

I fully expect that upon picking my 6 year old Grandson up at school, if I was to utter the gender specific slur “ Hello there, I'm Billy's Grand-Father, here to drive him home... ”, I'd be quickly taken aside by [at least] the Vice-Principle, and spoken to, in a one sided conversation.

Social justice warriors might gain some sympathy, if they only requested the creation of new words to avoid hurt feelings, when being addressed; (which I could almost buy into if only to be nice) However comma, the [apparently] unintended consequences will end up in those who refuse to utter the legally mandated words, being eventually, litigated, fined, out of a job, and in rare cases, jailed for remaining obstinate.

Secondly, social justice warriors might gain some sympathy, if they only requested the creation of new words to avoid hurt feelings, when being addressed, without inadvertently destroying the cultural language of gender, that has been in use for generations.

This second point is currently an unintended knock-on effect. But, present Ontario legislation, is designed expressly to make it law. The terms of Mother and Father will be legally expunged, to be replaced with the term(s), “Parent(s)”. And for some reason I've yet to fathom, you will be able to have not 2, but rather '4 Parents'...

In a somewhat disturbingly related case, Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, it was decreed that even the truth can be litigious:

Quote- Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction. -Unquote

In summary, my opinions (having nothing to do with any religious moralising) are based on science, biology specifically, which to my knowledge, in humans supports 2 genders, male and female. The fact that you look like a woman, but feel like your a guy, is perfectly ok [not that anyone needs my permission].

If you suffer from gender diaspora, seek psychological therapy to resolve your conflict-ions and do not demand that every else's Mother and Father become State sanctioned, neutered non-gendered 'parents'.

I am a father and a grand-father and expect I will remain so (in my own mind), regardless of legally mandated nouns.

RCMP chief’s comments about racism

fuel tense relations with officers

Do not read me wrong here; I have the utmost respect for the majority of police officers of all stripes, who are some of the finest Canadian citizens we have.

However comma, it is in this case, the RCMP Union's response, that [has been] continues to be the problem [notice I did not use the politically correct term 'challenge'].

As the Commissioner had the balls to publicly concede, that which every Canadian knows to be a fact; we have a significant number [any # is to many] of racists in our police forces ....really...you're kidding...

We also have a number of officer's who, emulating their mirrored numbers from Canadian society [despite apparent recruit vetting procedures] who are corrupt, self-serving and generally not interested in getting their uniforms dirty.

It is precisely this minority, and the majority's refusal to acknowledge the former's unimpeded existence, that is the primary cause of the nation wide public relations campaign that the police are rapidly losing.

Increasingly, where joe-average-Canadian is concerned, a tazer is employed, where a conversation may very well have cleared things up, to everyone's satisfaction. Increasingly, a 9mm pistol round is employed, where a tazer would have sufficed. Increasingly, 5 or 6 or 10 rounds are employed, where one round, would have done the job just fine...

Commissioner Paulson has called them [the racists, the corrupt, the self-serving] out, and according to the Union, their feelings are hurt...

I'll respond un-politically, in language I'm very sure that you'll be able to relate to...suck it up princess.

And while your at it, please direct your violent tendencies , towards the mafia and criminal biker gang elements, instead of joe-average-citizen, and you might just start gain a measure of respect, back from the average Canadian.

Thursday, 29 October 2015

Coffee Snobbery

(Abbreviated)

Researching, to roast my own Costa Rican ‘Tarazu’ beans in my fabricated BBQ roasting drum, I learned that the French Roast was developed to simply make one’s beans ‘go farther’ by burning the coffee, to make it ‘stronger’, hence make more cups from a lb of beans. Thus a French roast is a poor man’s roast…

Where is the flavor & aroma ?In the oil.

Roasting:

oThe tradition 1st crack [pop !] in roasting is the water coming to temperature

oThe 2nd crack, is the oil coming to temperature; at which point, the oil starts coming to the surface of the bean... Keep roasting and you physically burning the oil.

-Roast 15 seconds past the cresendo of the 2nd crack, remove ASAP and cool down in a LARGE metal bowl, stirring under a LARGE fan, so as to cool rapidly

-Let sit for a day to vent off the CO2

-Grind & enjoy !

Recommendations:

-Roast to and/or buy a ‘City Roast’ (medium).
-If you like your coffee stonger, grind/add more [unburnt] coffee
- Use a paper filter with a drip machine ?Your filtering out the oil (taste)
-Us a french press to extract the most flavor, while retaining the unburnt oils.

Friday, 23 October 2015

Retired, I ran into an old (Canadian) army acquaintance, a retired full Colonel, a former infantry Commanding Officer that I originally met as a young 2nd Lt when he first was posted to the battalion. This guy became known for his professionalism, hard driving leadership style. I watched as we deployed to Croatia (The Former Yugoslavia), he, as a Company Commander, and then to Afghanistan as Battle Group Commander. One tough nut... the kind of leader that could drag you willingly into and back from hell, with a smile on his and your face...

Now, 30 years after I first met this gentleman, we are discussing Afghan insurgent tactics, and the subject of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) comes up. The Colonel, offered up his opinion that,

"anyone afflicted with PTSD didn't measure

up on the battlefield....that they had some

situation where they failed to 'man up' and

now were feeling guilty of thier personal

shortcomings as a man and as a solider"

He essentially nailed it on the head; it is generally the situation that PTSD is a real or perceived shortcoming and/or inadequacy that results in mental anguish/dreams/nightmares etc... It can and often is simply experiencing situations where one has no power to do anything in a given situation;

unable to stop long enough [whilst on a mission with other priorities] to personally care for injured civilians, feed the starving.

unable to convert one's training and experience into battlefield confidence.

unable to save the life of a mortally wounded comrade in arms...

As a soldier who has dealt with a thankfully very minor case of PTSD, and known troops that are literally mentally and physically incapacitated because of it, I was astonished to here this coming from a former infantry Commanding Officer....

He nailed it in defining the general causation, but his enunciation was not simply explanatory, it was condemning. They, were weak, pathetic, to be despised in that they didn't have the balls, the cahonaas, to man up and get on with the profession of soldiering.

The level of ignorance was astounding...

So, you can imagine the instant thoughts that ran through my mind upon hearing recently, words being tossed out recently, in the middle of a federal election, by a Facebook Group called 'Veterans for the Conservative Party'....words challenging the 'courage' and 'moral clarity' of those present retired Canadian vets who started up 'Veterans against the Conservative Party'.

Granted, they [the latter] are not terribly organized. Some of the lads have become a tad worse for wear, becoming of 'wide girth', Few of them seem to have forgotten how to 'form' a beret and seem to think that speaking on national television in a T-Shirt, is ok.

But god dam it, these veterans have suffer from horrendous physical, emotional and mental injury. The fact that the Canadian Medical Corps had completely institutionally forgotten how to deal with 'shell-shock' (another story), only partially explains why they had to come up with a new name for it...PTSD.

So, when I read and hear 'Veterans for the Conservative Party' spouting off about challenging the 'courage' and 'moral clarity' of these veterans, the words of the Colonel, immediately sprang forth...

When challenged, the 'Veterans for the Conservative Party' denied to media that 'courage' and 'moral clarity' were not 'code' for something else, I thought to myself, that's exactly, what it is, code for cowardice, code for moral confusion, code for weakness, code for having failed on the battlefield, code for PTSD.

It's the Colonel, it's the 'Sgt Rocks' who can deploy repeatedly & endlessly, slaying jihadi dragons without mercy, feeling, doubt or remorse. And how dare anyone fail them, by not being able in body or spirit, to be there 'watching their six'. How dare they.

Even more than the TheoCons betrayal of injured vets, were these same despicable "Vets for Conservatives', retired and serving soldiers that effectively turned their backs on their 'weak willied' fellow brothers [and sisters] in arms, who are branded failures, lacking courage and moral clarity.

A huge disappointment, listening to these same Vets 4 TheoCons current and former soldiers spouting off, about how the system is just fine.

I personally have had great experiences with VAC however comma, there are injured troops [in mind and body] that have and continue to fall thru the cracks as a direct result of 'the system'.

I have a vague sensation, that comments questioning the 'courage' and 'moral clarity' of injured vets, is in fact 'code' for doubting those afflicted with PTSD...

But the 'Vets for Conservatives'

don't have the 'courage'

to come right out and say it...

In the same way Stephen Harper and his ilk, used code words to rally the ill-informed, the evangelically distracted, the dung kickers. Those claiming a moral high ground in a similar fashion, knocking down courage and moral clarity of the disadvantaged, of those who would have the audacity to actually use employment insurance, of those who may temporarily need the services of a food bank. Those not strong enough to stand up on their own two feet, to man up...

One can see a striking condescending similarity between The Colonel, 'Vets for Cons' and hard hard right TheoCons.

Saturday, 10 October 2015

QUESTION:
Why, would the vast majority of Canadians and the rest of worldly investors,
willingly give up 40-50% of their profits, to financial money managers, over
the lifetime of their RRSP/retirement investment timeline ?

Why indeed ?

If you’re
like me, you sat down with your investment manager [in my case, from a Canadian firm we will call
'Investor' Company for the sake of argument] and at some point, I asked him, “so how do you make your
money here ? “ He promptly replied, ” in the case of this specific fund, we
charge 3.2% of your profit.

I thought to
myself,

$3.20 for every 100.00 dollars
profit I bring in (gross),

is actually really good…

These guys are not the grubby greedy snakes I presumed !

GREAT !

And thus, the conversation ended, with a smile on his face.

What I found
out years later, was this ‘charge’ is called a ‘Management Expense Ratio (MER)

So, ten
years went by, and eventually I was wondering, why my tens of thousands, didn’t
seem to be making that much money, despite my 9 -10 % returns…especially
considering, that I was only being charged 3.2%, a paltry sum…

Except it wasn’t just 3.2%…. Three dollars & twenty cents for every
$100.00 in profit….

It was and is the FIRST 3.2%

Allow me to explain.

----

For
simplicity sake, let’s say our funds MER is 2.5%. I invest a bunch of money and
end up making a gross profit of 5% (5% which works out to $1,000.00)

ABC
Investment Corp will take their 2.5% MER right off the top, leaving me with the
remaining 2.5%....of my initial 5% …..

Confused ? You should be…

It’s not
$2.50 for every $100.00 profit, it’s the
FIRST 2.5% of my 5% I made !

THIS, is the industry’s dirty little
secret.

And just
what percentage, is 2.5% of 5% ?…….You
guessed it, 50%

--BIG LIGHTBULB COMES ON –

Why would
anyone give up 25/30/50% of their profits to an investing company/guru ?

Remember
that $1,000.00 gross profit I made ?Well, it’s actually going to be $500.00, as ABC Investment Corp will
skim their 2.5% MER/$500.00 (the first 2.5% of 5%) right off the top, before I
even see it (standard practice in the entire industry, wouldn’t you guess), and
I’ll get a paper statement, telling me that I made/netted (the remaining)
2.5%/$500.00, on my investment this year.

Now, MERs
and gross investment returns fluctuate year to year, but, over your investing
life time (40-50 years), you will give up in MERs, 40 to 50% of your gross
profits to the (crooked) investment firm.

This, is the
white elephant in the room; your corporatized investment guru will not explain
to you in detail, unless pressed, very hard. But, you will find it all explained
in legalese, in the very fine print in the contractual paper work you signed
with them.

Why will the
vast majority of investment managers steer you toward ‘actively managed’ funds
?Because they charge a (much)
higherMER of 2.5, 3.0, 3.5%.And if you didn’t know any better you’d say,
“Geez, 3% (three dollars) for every one hundred I make is pretty good ! But now
you know better…

It’s the FIRST
3%[STUPID]of your 6% = 50%

They will
tell you, that we charge a higher MER for ‘actively managed funds, because we
have hundreds of professionally trained investors who spend all days combing
the world, ‘actively managing’ your funds, to get you the best possible
returns….to beat the markets, to beat the TSX, the S&P 500, etc…They are ‘stirring the pot’. And with each
stir, your MER goes up a fraction of a percent.

The 2nd elephant in the room,

Is that
‘actively managed funds’ (by ‘professionals’) RARELY outperform the markets
[the TSX, the S&P 500, etc…). In fact, they normally underperform them; but,
you get to pay more for that privilege.

This, is
much better than an actively managed fund, as is plainly obvious. Many Index
funds cost well below a 1% MER; many are in the .5%, .75% range. It takes a bit
of digging and persistence.

Index funds
can charge a lower MER, because instead of a pool of professionals trying to
stir the pot, to beat the markets, a computer, simply tracks the performance (or
Index) of the particular stock market.

I spent a
decade+ paying 'Investor' Company MERs to manage my RRSPs, invested in
actively managed funds, paying them well above 3%.Keep in mind that Canada has on average, the
highest MERs in the known world, and 'Investors' Company charges some of the
highest in Canada. After all, they have to pay themselves some fairly high
wages, and pay for all of those Cable TV ads that are continuously spewing
forth.

Once I
realized, that 3.5% meant the FIRST 3.5%, I asked my 'Investor' Company guru, if
Investor Company offered RRSP investing in Index Funds. The initial answer was a
non-answer, in that he simply informed me that “ He was convinced that he had us best positioned for
our long term interests ”.

So, I when
back to him and specifically asked, “Does 3.5% meant the FIRST 3.5% ? “. And,
to his credit, he answered, “Yes.” .

I expressed
my amazement; and he was quick to point out, that a decade+ or so previously, I
had signed a piece of paper, where it was explained and thus I had legally
acknowledged, acknowledging that it’s ‘the first…’ and not $3.50 for every
$100.00

To this day,
I still have a hard time wrapping my brain around this concept. Had my
Investor Company guru, precisely explained this concept in language I would
have understood…my immediate response
would have been, “are you out of your mind ?I’m going to effectively pay you between 30 and 50% of my profits, so
that you can stir the pot, vainly trying to beat the market averages ?I don’t think so, would have been my reply.

Through the
majority of that decade+, I was netting roughly 6% on any given year. With my
MERs in the 3.4% range, (meaning I was grossing 9.4%) you can see that I was
paying Investor Company, approx. 35% of my profits to active manage my
‘portfolio’ (such a fancy smancy word)(Remember, ‘actively manage’ means they are professionals…) and through
all of this, they were doing neither no better, nor any worse than ‘average’.

It was this
35% that was missing, and that gave me a ‘feeling’ in my monthly investment
statements, that something was not adding up…

The third elephant in the room,

Is that you
get a monthly statement that gives you the overall value of your investments
generally in what is calleda ‘UNIT
VALUE’ ; this unit value fluctuate within the stock markets, up and down, each
day, month, year… So as markets fluctuate, and your focused on the unit value,
attempting to track whether your making any money or not, your somewhat oblivious
to the(in my case) 35% of my profits
that were getting skimmed off without my knowledge; Because I did not really
understand what an MER was, and I certainly did not understand, that an MER of
3%, meant the FIRST 3%. My bad.

Thus, I
should have been invested in ‘passive’ Index tracking funds, (which I am now
with a different investing firm, thank you very much) being charged something
in the1 -1.5% range, and I would have
still grossed 9.4%, BUT, netted out,making on average 7.9% profit.

Netting a
profit of 7.9% is significantly better than 6%, especially over the long term.

It’s not
just 6%, you can now understand that it works out to 40-50%, depending on your
circumstances, your gross profits and the (transparent/unseen) MER you’re
paying some guy in short pants, the in the vast majority of cases, match, if you’re
lucky, what the market is performing at,all by itself.

So, having
gone through this I hope and trust that I’ve been able to clearly explain that
the charged MER is the slice in percentage points that the investing advising
guru, takes directly off your gross gains, before you see it. (and you have to
figure, there is a very very good reason [for them] that they do this…it
assists in keeping you, the chump, ignorant).

If the MER
is 2%, (as it is commonly with actively managed funds)and I gross 6% (not
uncommon in today’s 2014/15 investing climate), your investing company takes
the FIRST 2% of gains, leaving you with the remaining 4%; This means you’re
giving them (in this case) 33% of your profits.

THIRTY THREE
PERCENT ! That, IMHO, is highway robbery and should be a criminal offence.

These MERs
in my case were what is called ‘front end loaded’ funds, in that the MER is
taken off at the front end, ‘before’ I see my net gains…Some funds are ‘rear end’ loaded. Some funds
have additional charges every time they ‘stir the pot’, moving your money
between investments, or between funds.

Statistics
over the long term, (YOUR long term investing of 30-40-50 years) have shown
that with actively managed funds, the MERs eat up 40 to 50% of gains.

Over the
short term, you may not notice much of an effect. (I did, and that’s why I
started asking questions.But it took 10 years for me to catch on !) However
comma, over the long term, this can and does mean, that instead of netting out
with a $250,000.00 retirement fund (with an Index fund charging a 1% [or
better] MER), you’re going to end up with 130,000.00 – 150,000.00 .

Yes, a ONE
HUNDRED THOUSAND+DOLLAR DIFFERENCE,
over a lifetime of investing.

That ladies
and gentlemen, is going to translate in a huge difference; in the monthly
‘annuity’ you eventually create from that money, to finance your retirement.

Now, you
know better.

I have spent
considerable time on the internet, looking for papers/web sites/authors, that
explain this phenomenon if it being the first XX % of your gross profits,
without a lot of success. You can imagine that it’s not in any investment
advisors interest to be completely transparent about it, is it. They stand to
make more money from your/our ignorance.

Let me say that it is not just
Investor’s Group that enables ignorant clients, it’s the entire industry. They
[all of them] will claim that they have a financial gain to make, from being
completely forthright, open, and transparent. After all, if they make you
money, you will stick around, recommend them to others. That’s how the ‘grow
the business’.

I submit, they grow the business,
the profit margin, from keeping clients ignorant. IMHO, it highway robbery with
a smile on their face. It is unfortunately, perfectly legal, thus making them
nice guys in a shirt and tie. They will make the average schumk 200K in long
term profits. However comma, what they will not tell you is to walk down the
street, and invest in an Index Tacking Fund, paying a .5% MER, and thus making
an additional 150K.

The few
sites that have broached the subject, do so in language that often obfuscates
the message. And as you can now appreciate, the message is initially beyond
belief and comprehension. It took me a few days of saying, “it can’t be” to
figure it out.

Additional
opinions on this subject (complete with charts & graphs on the subj):

I encourage you to forward this to everyone you know who has set up a retirement fund, so that it becomes common knowledge. The financial industry presently has legal licence to fleece the world, as long as we are ignorant.